mr2mk1g

you forgot to mention that it was supposed to be a hybrid and Achilles was in stand and turtlespeed was flat.

It cant become infinately thin and long. At some point you would get down to a hugely tall stack of individual atoms. That point would be measurable an predictable, assuming you knew how many atoms you had in a sheet of paper. Good luck trying to fold the atoms in half, and please ensure you do it away from an populated areas

easy - three marbles is the minimum although, thats if you are lucky. You pick one, its white. Same back pick a seccond, its black. You know thats the mixed. Pick a third from a seccond bag - its black. You know thats the black bag and the other is the white. If you want to pick enough marbles to guarantee you can find out you need 8 you need four from the first to see its black, and four from the seccond to know its white - last is mixed by elimination.

Taken from the Darwin Awards website: Was this you Dave? C'mon admit it... it sounds like you. The Darwin Awards have slipped! They are supposed to be for people who remove themselves from the gene pool through monumental acts of stupidity. All the runners up you mention survived thus are ineligible.

damnit - thought that was too easy... that means I'd actually have to think to work this one out... too bad - back to work in 3 minutes.

and out piss any of us.... least until you get that prostate thingy sorted out...

infinate - the trains are going in opposite directions... Or I suppose the answer could be related to the cercumferance of the earth.

Not sure about his plan for a Right Hand exit mind...

not my room - will be crashing in Firkies... believe me, you do not want to have to perform the deviant sexual things that he will demand of you as payment for entering his room.... I only escape because Im a bloke

Oops - yes your right. The Finnest is smaller but quite nice. Huge step. I did a raps jump out of it too ages ago.

bar? BAR? who needs the bar - we just keep taking a walk back to our room and coming back with some of the stuff we brought with!

A will pass T. He still travels 10 x as far as A each time. Each time you give the example the distance traveled decreases but the factor between the two stays the same. Eventually the two lines will cross - they are not paralell.

Im currently temporarily using one on my chest strap but when I get back to a loft Im having my aluminium one installed on my left mud flap pulling down to access (left side/high) and my Benchmade 5 on my right legstrap pulling up and back to access (rightside/low)

Yes its nice. I hear its the fastest turbine in Britain. Its quick up to altitude and holds 17 jumpers although weston runs it with 15 on a full fuel load then 16 then 17 etc. (I hear hibbs runs it with 17 all the time though - grapevine only). Bottom line is that most jumpers like it. No idea on the money behind its operating though.

ah... so thats whats done it....

I didnt see anyone try to make that point. Those defending the suit were simply saying that they believed where there had been to financial and physical damage caused by someones wrong doing the injured party should be compensated. I sat firmly on the fence as to whether or not THIS instance was a case of wrong doing - but I firmly defend the right of someone to seek compensation where there is a wong. I defend this right despite the fact that I spend my working life defending legal proceedings and trying to ensure the claimant gets no more that they are entitled to. I defend it because its an important right to have. Stupid lawsuits piss me off. I did not know if this was stupid or not - I would have argued with anyone who claimed to have enough information to do so. After hook's update it would appear that it may well have been.

Gremlin you can't get dyslexia from masturbating

sorry - i edited. for legal liability it must be forseeable before the fact. Hindsight is 20-20 but the law will achnowlage that humans are not.

(1) was that forseeable? If no - not liable If yes - see (2) (2) did they do everything reasonable under the circumstances to avoid that risk? If no - possibly liable If yes - probably not liable

All bets off like you say. Even if there was a defect there would be no way that the claimant could prove that the malfunction on the reserve was due to it as opposed to the damage caused by the main. Such a lawsuit should not happen and I would hope a properly informed jury would not find in favour of the claimant... but as we have all kept saying throughout this - shit happens. Maybe a lawsuit is warrented on the issue of M- reserves, I don't know. But if what hook posted is correct, this was not the case to take to court. This is a sad story for all involved. I'm sad that my vocation and my sport clash like this hurting everyone in the process.

Well I cant speak for the american justice system That is the opinon of the justice system - not mine. Im just relating what the law is remember, its just my job to apply it as it is, not to make it. Of course there isn't - thats why its "all steps reasonable under the circumstances". In the circumstances of a home build plane held together with gaffers tape, it may well be reasonable to swing a bit on the wing, spit and say "aw reckon that'll be juuuust fine". For a production airoplane the public may just require a little higher degree of care to be taken. "resaonableness under the circumstances" is a remarkably fluid test... one of the reasons courts find it so difficult to apply.

Mistakes are fine, mistakes happen. Mistakes that could have been forseen and avoided are not fine. The should not be fine and peolpe who allow them to happen should suffer the consequenses. (please accept this as the general comment it is and not as a specific comment on the parachuting case in question - I do not know what happened in that instance)

No. Thats not negligence. You are also negligent if you put out a product that you should have known could kill or seriously hurt. Thats a question for the jury - ie did the manufacturer do everything the could reasonably have been expected to do to ensure the safety of their product? If they did everything that was reasonable to do eg use a qualified designer, test drops, beta testing etc. then even though the parachute failed, the manufacturer could escape liability. If they did not do everything reasonable, they just jotted down a nice looking drawing or roughly copied something made by a competitor - then who would really say that they shouldnt be held liable for the injuries that occured?

You must remember that to avoid legal liability you dont have to prevent any of these things from ever happening, you just have take such steps as are reasonable under the circumstances to avoid them. What is reasonable depends on the circumstances - building a plane is probably one of the more stringent circumstances for obvious reasons. In the case of a plane reasonable steps might be to employ a really good designer who has worked in the industry for years; use top quality componants; riggously test your plane; and spend money ensuring quality control. If a manufacturer does all these things they will most likely escape liability were something ever to happen. The law does not expect people to be superhumans. It does not expect people to be infalable. It also accepts that shit sometimes just happens despite peoples best efforts. All it asks of manufacturers is that they do what you would expect them to do. The jury is there to see that "our" impression of what a manufacturer should be expected to do is put across. Sometimes in your opinion they get it wrong but then were not there so did not hear the 2 months worth of facts and arguments (for example). Please try to remember that its not quite as simple as saying that things some times break so you should accept that risk. I accept that risk where the manufacturer has spend $$$ on R&D and on quality control. I do not accept that risk where the manufacturer has doodled on a napkin in his lunch hour and sent his two mexican employees off with a hammer and some gaffers tape.

Yeah we have a table and some spill over... so I guess not quite half then - but at least a little over a dozen.